Wind Hazard Risk Assessment and Management for Structures

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1.2.3 Quantitative Vulnerability Model Chapter 1. Introduction 6 Generally, there are three different approaches to develope a quantitative vulnerability model (Watson and Johnson, 2004): (1) claim-based, (2) engineering judgment, and (3) theory-based. Each of the approaches has its own advantages over the others and is improved over time. Some vulnerability models employ more than one approach simultaneously. 1.2.2.1 Claim-based Approach Vulnerability models using the claim-based approach estimate the hurricane damage of a building without considering the physics or engineering of the building components, and usually derive relationships between the historical damage and wind speeds from the past insurance claim data. This approach may not predict the damage precisely mainly because the insurance loss information, including the amount of claims and the date of claims, is largely controlled by human factors. Such factors may include personal view of an individual insurance adjuster and aggressiveness of homeowner (Watson and Johnson, 2004). For example, the amount a homeowner claims is affected by the policy details such as deductibles. The company policies regarding insurance claims are subjected to administrative and polit- ical considerations that differ from storm to storm. Moreover, the insurance claim data in a region may not apply to other regions. Factors including environment and construction practices vary from region to region. Many vulnerability models are developed using the claim-based approach. Studies by Leicester et al. (1979) and Leicester (1981) are those of the first studies in the literature that established and elaborated the concepts of vulnerability curves. In their models, Leicester et al. adopted a linear relationship between the damage index and the gust wind speed for different types of housing in Australia based on damage surveys. Contrast to the linear relationship between wind speed and damage, Sparks et al. (1994) suggested that significant damage begins when the gradient wind speed reaches 40 m/s and rises steadily until 70 m/s.
Chapter 1. Introduction 7 Between 70 m/s and 80 m/s, there is a sudden rise in damage due to loss of building envelope and rain entering the building. Sparks et al. (1994) also observed that housing damage is closely related to the performance of the roof and wall building envelope. Similarly, Mitsuta et al. (1996) observed a highly correlated relationship between home damage and surface wind speed from insurance data of tropical cyclones Mireille and Flo in Japan. Sill and Kozlowski (1997) developed an approach for predicting the hurricane damage for a population of structures as a function of a wide range of factors including gradient wind speed, gust factor, average value of the buildings, and two parameters which govern the rate of damage increase with wind speed. The proposed method was intended to move away for curve fitting schemes, but its practical value is hampered by insufficient clarity and transparency (Pinelli et al., 2004). 1.2.2.2 Engineering judgment Approach The engineering judgment approach is based on the engineering survey of damaged structures (Watson and Johnson, 2004). Similar to the claim-based approach, it largely depends on individual interpretation. For instance, there are many different versions about the definition of a 50% damage of a roof (Watson and Johnson, 2004). One example of the engineering judgment approaches is the analysis of data obtained from the American Red Cross data on residential damage from hurricanes by Howard et al. (1972). Also, engineering judgment often supplements the theory-based approach. For example, the Florida public hurricane loss projection model (Gurley et al., 2005b) uses engineering judgment to modify the ASCE 7 wind load specification for hurricane loss estimation.
Page 1 and 2: Wind Hazard Risk Assessment and Man
Page 3 and 4: Abstract Rising hurricane damages o
Page 5 and 6: me, has given me countless fun time
Page 7 and 8: CONTENTS vii 2.2.4 Mean Boundary La
Page 9 and 10: CONTENTS ix 5.3 Hazard model . . .
Page 11 and 12: LIST OF FIGURES xi 3.4 Distribution
Page 13 and 14: LIST OF FIGURES xiii 5.12 Examples
Page 15 and 16: 1.1 Overview Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 17 and 18: Chapter 1. Introduction 3 fessions
Page 19: Chapter 1. Introduction 5 Table 1.3
Page 23 and 24: 1.2.4 Recent Developments Chapter 1
Page 25 and 26: Chapter 1. Introduction 11 of low-r
Page 27 and 28: Chapter 2 Structural Components and
Page 29 and 30: Chapter 2. Structural Components an
Page 31 and 32: (deg) V (m/s) 60 40 20 0 180 90 0 9
Page 49 and 50: NEGATIVE WALL PRESSURE (COV = 0.509
Page 55 and 56: Chapter 3. Internal Pressure in Low
Page 61 and 62: design guidelines. Chapter 3. Inter
Page 63 and 64: 3.4.3 Eurocode Chapter 3. Internal
Page 67 and 68: Wind Speed & Wind Direction Chapter
Page 69 and 70: (a) STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 (b) STEP 1
Page 71 and 72:
Chapter 3. Internal Pressure in Low
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Mean Loss Ratio WITHOUT WINDBORNE D
Page 77 and 78:
Maximum Percentage Increase in Mean
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
3.8 Discussion Chapter 3. Internal
Page 83 and 84:
Chapter 4 Integrated Multi-Structur
Page 85 and 86:
Chapter 4. Integrated Multi-Structu
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
LEGEND Roof sheathing onnection ind
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
DAMAGE ANALYIS USING MAXIMUM WIND V
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Chapter 5. Long-Term Risk Assessmen
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
(a) Change in Mean Frequency / Year
Page 121 and 122:
(a) Change in Mean Frequency / Year
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
simulated. Chapter 5. Long-Term Ris
Page 131 and 132:
Percentage Change in Mean Frequency
Page 133 and 134:
Expected Total Structural Damage Co
Page 135 and 136:
Structural Damage Ratio 1 0.9 0.8 0
Page 137 and 138:
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Future Wo
Page 139 and 140:
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Future W
Page 141 and 142:
Chapter 6. Conclusions and Future W
Page 143 and 144:
Bibliography American Meteorologica
Page 145 and 146:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 131 Federal Emergency
Page 147 and 148:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 133 over the gulf of S
Page 149 and 150:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 135 Lin, N., Vanmarcke
Page 151 and 152:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 137 Rosowsky, D. and C
Page 153:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 139 Vanmarcke, E., Lin
show all

Wind Hazard Risk Assessment and Management for Structures

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?